BGFalcons82;1236023 wrote:4 years, eh? I just checked my status on OC and it states I've only been a member for 2 years and 1 week. Are you clairvoyant? :huh:

So, if demand is the problem, how can it be generated? Both Bush and Obama have spent trillions upon trillions to "stimulate" Americans into spending money. How's that working out, Mr. Keynes, Jr? You believe the half-trillion dollar American Jobs Act will be the final titration to spur the country into economic nirvana? Seriously? Only you and Krugman believe we can spend our way into prosperity. The banks have also been given trillions to loan out and they are as historically tight to lend as ever. Why? Instead of lashing out at them as being, "evil profit-hungry Scrooges", why not dig a little deeper? Do they like to loan money in anticipation of a good return or do they loan money just for fun and to carry Obama's Social Justice water? You KNOW the answer.

Fiscal restraint is coming whether you like it or not. We either start now while we have a choice or spend spend spend more more more until the choice is taken away, services are completely cut, or we inflate our way to the stars.

You equate Barry's leadership to Pryor's at OSU? Ummm...Pryor actually won games, titles and bowls. Barry can only win rigged contests when the Congress passes everything he wants. If Barry's economy were a B1G football team, they'd finish behind the Golden Goophers.:laugh:

1. I seem to remember a BGFalcons82 on *************. And, either way, it's not about you per se but the millions of other inflationistas like yourself out there who have been completely wrong but refuse to reevaluate.

2. I'd be more interested in hearing how you think demand would be stimulated because firing people in federal agencies is certainly not the answer. Conservatives argue that a balanced budget would make private individuals spend money rather than pay down their own debt because they would have "confidence." This is of course a silly notion because people need more money in their pocket and cutting spending takes more money out. This idea that "we can't spend our way to prosperity" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way a macroeconomy works. Spending on goods and services in mutually beneficial exchanges is what makes the economy go. My spending is your income; your income is my spending. When private individuals consume less and invest less and pay down more debt (as they're doing) demand goes down. If government spending doesn't go up demand stays down and you get perpetual depression. Banks don't lend when there's a lack of aggregate demand...this is the upside down of the liquidity trap.

3. People have been saying that "fiscal restraint is coming" forever now. It's very clear now that markets treat countries that borrow in their own currency much differently than countries that do not and Ronald Reagan's inflation rate certainly isn't "inflating our way to the stars." The markets aren't demanding fiscal restraint...they're demanding the government take their money off their hands for a couple years and are willing to pay for it.

4. I wasn't saying that President Obama is some kind of phenom like Pryor I was merely using a very familiar example. Perhaps sophomore Craig Krenzel vs. Austin Moherman is a better example?

Abe Vigoda;1235479 wrote:You never fail to disappoint. I will assume than that you and your business have indeed received some kind of government assistance like most have such as small business loans, tax credit etc. The point of the speech I heard applies about the teachers who mentored you, the taxes that you and lots of other hard working Americans paid so that the infrastructural to your business could be built. Try as you may anyone, with no agenda to pursue understands what Obama was saying.

Abe Vigoda

Seems like people like you Entitlement Brainwashed, Government Hack or Obama Leg Tingling Support does not understand the mentality of a small business entrepreneurs. Risk taker, dream dedicated, relentless for achieving a goal and mostly independency would be a proper definition IMO. We work off of our own money, putting of home up for second mortgage, selling our house, investing everything we have for the dream, barrowing from our equity and securing loans with what we own … Not help from anyone …. Obama

See Obama and the Obama supporter we the Entrepreneurs of America do want we do on our own backs, to create something of value. You and people like Obama think they are owed something because you think you have value and those who back have …. You want….

(The point of the speech I heard applies about the teachers who mentored you, the taxes that you and lots of other hard working Americans paid so that the infrastructural to your business could be built)

Sorry but those teachers own me and the millions of tax payer who provide them.. a building, materials and salary. They earn a living from my efforts...

That infrastructural was created by the entrepreneurs that created technology Automobile, Engine, Tires, Gears, Transmissions, Steering for a modern advance society. Government did create that … individuals did. The first road built in America was a privately built road only then did Politicians and Government see the tax potential…

As a DAV I could have applied for SBA loan for my first business but I did not take that route. I invested my own money and took the risk of failure or success…
My second business I have again invested in myself and the confidence I have to succeed. I have invested a lot of money in a new technology product. Now that I have this product I need some support to complete the goal. I have gone to the Local, County, State and Feds government seeking funding. This process has been going on for two years. What government does understand is what entrepreneurs needs, not every business is the same and needs are different depending on the product. Government likes to waste our tax money and spend it on project that make them look good but they are not for taking risk with their personal career in supporting a company or a product. The all want to be at the ribbon cutting but they don’t want to take the risk.

I have a file that is 4 inch thick with names (past and present), department of government all levels, fliers and programs printed out. Worthless and meaningless to an entrepreneur that values his independence. I don’t need government funds with more restriction and regulation to hinder my profits, dreams and product.

As a kid my mom and I lived on welfare in the Projects (someplace you never visited) and I know that trap and dependence that comes with government entitlement … Not thanks I will stay free, keep my liberty and honor. I will not be a slave to the government, a burden to society and political whipping tool for politician’s political gains…

Take your funding, entitlement and shove it … my terms … you work for me remember you’re the fucking public servant…

BoatShoes;1236838 wrote:1. I seem to remember a BGFalcons82 on *************. And, either way, it's not about you per se but the millions of other inflationistas like yourself out there who have been completely wrong but refuse to reevaluate.

2. I'd be more interested in hearing how you think demand would be stimulated because firing people in federal agencies is certainly not the answer. Conservatives argue that a balanced budget would make private individuals spend money rather than pay down their own debt because they would have "confidence." This is of course a silly notion because people need more money in their pocket and cutting spending takes more money out. This idea that "we can't spend our way to prosperity" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way a macroeconomy works. Spending on goods and services in mutually beneficial exchanges is what makes the economy go. My spending is your income; your income is my spending. When private individuals consume less and invest less and pay down more debt (as they're doing) demand goes down. If government spending doesn't go up demand stays down and you get perpetual depression. Banks don't lend when there's a lack of aggregate demand...this is the upside down of the liquidity trap.

3. People have been saying that "fiscal restraint is coming" forever now. It's very clear now that markets treat countries that borrow in their own currency much differently than countries that do not and Ronald Reagan's inflation rate certainly isn't "inflating our way to the stars." The markets aren't demanding fiscal restraint...they're demanding the government take their money off their hands for a couple years and are willing to pay for it.

4. I wasn't saying that President Obama is some kind of phenom like Pryor I was merely using a very familiar example. Perhaps sophomore Craig Krenzel vs. Austin Moherman is a better example?

Wake up BoatShoes .... listen and leaner
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1759465371001/more-signs-of-a-troubled-us-economy


read and learn:

http://news.investors.com/article/620162/201207271900/americans-are-losing-ground-under-obama-polices.htm

Belly35;1236906 wrote:Wake up BoatShoes .... listen and leaner
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1759465371001/more-signs-of-a-troubled-us-economy


read and learn:

http://news.investors.com/article/620162/201207271900/americans-are-losing-ground-under-obama-polices.htm

I'm not really sure what products your sell Belly but I know you've mentioned that you've had a tough time through this recession as other business owners have. But the question is, what's going to make your sales go up...is it going to be firing people at the IRS and laying employees in your county and local municipality who then won't purchase your products because they'll be on the dole in hopes that it will give the other people in the economy the "confidence" to purchase your products...or is people having more money in their pockets because they're gainfully employed and can manage their private debt burdens and still engage in mutually beneficial exchanges for your products that make you both more wealthy?

I know you don't identify with President Obama or the democratic party but it is clear which approach will allow for an economy where entrepreneurs like yourself can thrive.

I am sure taxing business owners and adding regulation is the answer:rolleyes:

BoatShoes;1237170 wrote:I'm not really sure what products your sell Belly but I know you've mentioned that you've had a tough time through this recession as other business owners have. But the question is, what's going to make your sales go up...is it going to be firing people at the IRS and laying employees in your county and local municipality who then won't purchase your products because they'll be on the dole in hopes that it will give the other people in the economy the "confidence" to purchase your products...or is people having more money in their pockets because they're gainfully employed and can manage their private debt burdens and still engage in mutually beneficial exchanges for your products that make you both more wealthy?

I know you don't identify with President Obama or the democratic party but it is clear which approach will allow for an economy where entrepreneurs like yourself can thrive.

elitesmithie05;1237241 wrote:I am sure taxing business owners and adding regulation is the answer:rolleyes:

Ugh. First of all a proper response is to a depression is not to raise taxes or cut spending but to run deficits. However, letting the top marginal rate expire because folks these days are sooo concerned about the deficit when they shouldn't be wouldn't be that harmful so long as there was an adequate spending offset because.....ding ding ding, a very small amount of business owners would be affected by letting the top marginal rate expire. This is from IRS data and more enunciated extrapolations from the Tax Policy Center.

Salaried employees in New York and San Francisco would be harmed...not small business owners in northwest Ohio.

Additionally, I don't see anyone talking about a bunch of more regulation on small businesses...even Obamacare largely exempts firms under 50 employees.

But the point is, even taxes and regulation generally ought to be deferred until full employment is reached...no one with power is saying this...everyone is talking about the debt and the deficit and we shouldn't be.

elitesmithie05;1237241 wrote:I am sure taxing business owners and adding regulation is the answer:rolleyes:

Get ready for exactly that, smithie. Not to be overlooked is the hatred the Left has for wives and children of dead people as the Death Tax reverts to its previosly obscene amount and the exemption goes back to only the first million. Look for the marxist-inspired Capital Gains tax rate to jump up per Barry's lust for mo money. Why on earth anyone wants to tax the bejeezus out of the risk takers, homeowners, and daytraders is completely beyond me. But here we are, discussing how much "more" tax revenue can be generated in an economy expanding at the grotesque level of 1.75% in 2012.

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are
Rich no more

Belly35;1235381 wrote:My personal identity and the anonymity of my business will remain status quo.
I have shared this information with a few creditable OC individual and the legalistic of my business are documented so your comment is unwarranted and the idea to do so is ludicrous

Is your whorehouse in Ohio?:laugh:

BGFalcons82;1237352 wrote:Get ready for exactly that, smithie. Not to be overlooked is the hatred the Left has for wives and children of dead people as the Death Tax reverts to its previosly obscene amount and the exemption goes back to only the first million. Look for the marxist-inspired Capital Gains tax rate to jump up per Barry's lust for mo money. Why on earth anyone wants to tax the bejeezus out of the risk takers, homeowners, and daytraders is completely beyond me. But here we are, discussing how much "more" tax revenue can be generated in an economy expanding at the grotesque level of 1.75% in 2012.

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are
Rich no more

"hatred of wives and children" hmm...when really the transfer to the estate is treated like any other windfall gain in the code (except gifts inexplicably due to a bad supreme court case in the early 1900s). In fact it was the zero percent rate that deviates from income tax norms. Additionally, I think it's worth pointing out that every state in the union while the founding father's eliminated the laws of primogeniture to deliver a severe blow to inherited wealth. Most of them, especially Thomas Jefferson, certainly would support the spirit of the estate tax.

Marxist inspired capital gains rate...despite the fact that under the traditional conservative position on income taxes (if we're going to have one) that the code ought to be neutral towards economic behavior...whether one engages in productive activity that generates compensation for services rendered or investment activity that generates capital gains...the code ought not to try to engage in social engineering and "pick winners and losers" which is precisely what the code does when we have an income tax regime and yet we give preferential treatment capital income as opposed to labor income.

Although these reforms should be postponed until full employment...if you supported an income tax that didn't "pick winners and losers" you would support these changes. I realize you think the idiocy of the fair tax is a good idea but if we're going to have an income tax, you ought to support these changes if you don't like the idea of the government meddling in the decisions of private individuals. A day trader shouldn't decide to day trade because of preferential tax treatment but for economic and business reasons.

Further...there's no democrats with power talking about taxing the rich in order to increase transfer payments to the poor. If anything, President Obama and other democrats have been all to eager to agree to cuts to medicare and social security if conservatives had even a shed of ability to bargain.

WHen was the last time Senate passed a budget....

elitesmithie05;1237786 wrote:WHen was the last time Senate passed a budget....

What virtue is there in passing a budget via reconciliation that will have no Republican votes when it will likely be a compromise vote because the Senate is more moderate than the House when it will just be used to hammer them and has zero chance of getting through a conference committee with House Republicans?? the Republicans are supposedly virtuous for passing budgets with phony numbers and projections as outrageous as astral projections but this is wrong. There is little virtue in passing a budget simply to play to your political base when that budget has zero chance of being enacted. A lot of wasted effort much like the House's constant votes on repealing the ACA.

BoatShoes;1237789 wrote:There is little virtue in passing a budget simply to play to your political base

There is NO virtue in not passing any budget for any reason. Nada. None. This is just scapegoating to pass the buck. God forbid we'd have a vote on real legislation so candidates might actually have something to debate.

It's the cowardly leadership of one Harry S. Reid, who quashes shit before it even gets to vote because it might be used politically against the Dems. The same guy who quashes shit with unnecessary fillibuster votes so he can blame Repubs for the quashing of his choosing.

It's their F**KING JOB to vote on shit, then argue/debate the outcomes and make modifications if necessary. Refusing to vote isn't politics and it isn't partisan - it's gross neglect of duty.

BoatShoes;1237703 wrote:"hatred of wives and children" hmm...when really the transfer to the estate is treated like any other windfall gain in the code (except gifts inexplicably due to a bad supreme court case in the early 1900s). In fact it was the zero percent rate that deviates from income tax norms. Additionally, I think it's worth pointing out that every state in the union while the founding father's eliminated the laws of primogeniture to deliver a severe blow to inherited wealth. Most of them, especially Thomas Jefferson, certainly would support the spirit of the estate tax.

Why does this form of income need to be taxed twice? Take the case of a single-proprietor business (like a family farm, trucking company, construction company, etc) where the husband owns it and then dies. All the equipment he owned, all the property he possessed and all of the revenue he paid income taxes on year after year after year after year are suddenly subject to a tax upon his wife, whom was married to him year after year after year after year of his paying income taxes. It is NOT unusual for a large farm or construction company to have over $1,000,000 in assets. To sum up, the husband paid his family's taxes for decades, he provided jobs for others, he accrued wealth because he earned every penny of it, and when he dies, his wife is subjected to having daddy government confiscate 35% of what he legally possessed. And you have no trouble with this. In the end, we have no wealth, only what is granted to us by our supreme elites....right?

BoatShoes;1237703 wrote:Marxist inspired capital gains rate...despite the fact that under the traditional conservative position on income taxes (if we're going to have one) that the code ought to be neutral towards economic behavior...whether one engages in productive activity that generates compensation for services rendered or investment activity that generates capital gains...the code ought not to try to engage in social engineering and "pick winners and losers" which is precisely what the code does when we have an income tax regime and yet we give preferential treatment capital income as opposed to labor income.

Let's step back for a second and look at what the Capital Gains Tax does. A person/entity that invests time, wealth and treasure to build a successful business and CREATE JOBS will have at least 23.8% (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/capital-gains-fault-line-as-obama-romney-tax-plans-differ.html) confiscated by big daddy government because the person/entity dared to invest possibly all they had and became successful. In today's lingo, where our current White House occupier says he has a, "laser focus on jobs and the economy", also has a concurrent plan that PUNISHES the same people he purports to want to help. Tell me, how can you preach to the country that you want more private sector employment and will confiscate a significant portion of wealth of the ones who do what he asks? The answer, as always, is to allow individuals to keep THEIR OWN MONEY and they'll invest it, create jobs, and expand in our semi-capitalist system. It really is that simple of an idea...letting people keep what they earn. Oh wait...you and the Left believe it's the supreme elite's decision to see where their money should be spent. Got it.

BoatShoes;1237703 wrote:Although these reforms should be postponed until full employment...if you supported an income tax that didn't "pick winners and losers" you would support these changes. I realize you think the idiocy of the fair tax is a good idea but if we're going to have an income tax, you ought to support these changes if you don't like the idea of the government meddling in the decisions of private individuals. A day trader shouldn't decide to day trade because of preferential tax treatment but for economic and business reasons.

Further...there's no democrats with power talking about taxing the rich in order to increase transfer payments to the poor. If anything, President Obama and other democrats have been all to eager to agree to cuts to medicare and social security if conservatives had even a shed of ability to bargain.

How can a purportedly free country such as ours have a tax code that not one citizen can understand? It is not only shameful, it's just flat out wrong. But here we are, arguing as a nation about what marvelous tweaks, edits, credits, cuts, blah blah blah can be conjured up to cure our ills. We must have a tax code that is understandable and is not subject to the social engineers, but that is a pipe dream that will never be consumated. Finally, you mention cuts. Can you tell us how many cuts the Democrats or the members of the Dem-Lite party have actually implemented over the past few decades? Looking at federal spending, it has gone up each and every year. It is nothing short of a lie to claim anyone will cut anything as there is no historical evidence that it has ever happened.

gut;1237805 wrote:There is NO virtue in not passing any budget for any reason. Nada. None. This is just scapegoating to pass the buck. God forbid we'd have a vote on real legislation so candidates might actually have something to debate.

It's the cowardly leadership of one Harry S. Reid, who quashes shit before it even gets to vote because it might be used politically against the Dems. The same guy who quashes shit with unnecessary fillibuster votes so he can blame Repubs for the quashing of his choosing.

It's their F**KING JOB to vote on shit, then argue/debate the outcomes and make modifications if necessary. Refusing to vote isn't politics and it isn't partisan - it's gross neglect of duty.

Hhmmm....do you mean Harry Reid, the Mormon? I wonder why he's not being dragged into the attack on Mitt Romney's religion? But I digress.

gut;1237805 wrote:There is NO virtue in not passing any budget for any reason. Nada. None. This is just scapegoating to pass the buck. God forbid we'd have a vote on real legislation so candidates might actually have something to debate.

It's the cowardly leadership of one Harry S. Reid, who quashes **** before it even gets to vote because it might be used politically against the Dems. The same guy who quashes **** with unnecessary fillibuster votes so he can blame Repubs for the quashing of his choosing.

It's their F**KING JOB to vote on ****, then argue/debate the outcomes and make modifications if necessary. Refusing to vote isn't politics and it isn't partisan - it's gross neglect of duty.

Walk-off home-run, slam-dunk-reps.

gut;1237805 wrote:There is NO virtue in not passing any budget for any reason. Nada. None. This is just scapegoating to pass the buck. God forbid we'd have a vote on real legislation so candidates might actually have something to debate.

It's the cowardly leadership of one Harry S. Reid, who quashes shit before it even gets to vote because it might be used politically against the Dems. The same guy who quashes shit with unnecessary fillibuster votes so he can blame Repubs for the quashing of his choosing.

It's their F**KING JOB to vote on shit, then argue/debate the outcomes and make modifications if necessary. Refusing to vote isn't politics and it isn't partisan - it's gross neglect of duty.

Well I disagree. Steve LaTourette who's retiring now apparently...one of the last Republicans who was reasonable brought Bowles Simpson to a vote in the House and it got trounced by Republicnas. Only a budget like that would pass the Senate and it would be used to hammer them rather than as a point to begin negotiations at conference committee. As long as the House is voting on coloring books/fairy tales and calling them budgets, playing pure politics believing that the national interest lies only in the triumph of their caucus I'm really not that upset by different appropriation bills that keep the government running.

If you think it's a dereliction of duty not to "vote on shit" you ought to be pretty upset with the Republicans in the Senate who have used the filibuster more than any other Congress.

BGFalcons82;1237819 wrote:Why does this form of income need to be taxed twice? Take the case of a single-proprietor business (like a family farm, trucking company, construction company, etc) where the husband owns it and then dies. All the equipment he owned, all the property he possessed and all of the revenue he paid income taxes on year after year after year after year are suddenly subject to a tax upon his wife, whom was married to him year after year after year after year of his paying income taxes. It is NOT unusual for a large farm or construction company to have over $1,000,000 in assets. To sum up, the husband paid his family's taxes for decades, he provided jobs for others, he accrued wealth because he earned every penny of it, and when he dies, his wife is subjected to having daddy government confiscate 35% of what he legally possessed. And you have no trouble with this. In the end, we have no wealth, only what is granted to us by our supreme elites....right?

Let's step back for a second and look at what the Capital Gains Tax does. A person/entity that invests time, wealth and treasure to build a successful business and CREATE JOBS will have at least 23.8% (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/capital-gains-fault-line-as-obama-romney-tax-plans-differ.html) confiscated by big daddy government because the person/entity dared to invest possibly all they had and became successful. In today's lingo, where our current White House occupier says he has a, "laser focus on jobs and the economy", also has a concurrent plan that PUNISHES the same people he purports to want to help. Tell me, how can you preach to the country that you want more private sector employment and will confiscate a significant portion of wealth of the ones who do what he asks? The answer, as always, is to allow individuals to keep THEIR OWN MONEY and they'll invest it, create jobs, and expand in our semi-capitalist system. It really is that simple of an idea...letting people keep what they earn. Oh wait...you and the Left believe it's the supreme elite's decision to see where their money should be spent. Got it.

How can a purportedly free country such as ours have a tax code that not one citizen can understand? It is not only shameful, it's just flat out wrong. But here we are, arguing as a nation about what marvelous tweaks, edits, credits, cuts, blah blah blah can be conjured up to cure our ills. We must have a tax code that is understandable and is not subject to the social engineers, but that is a pipe dream that will never be consumated. Finally, you mention cuts. Can you tell us how many cuts the Democrats or the members of the Dem-Lite party have actually implemented over the past few decades? Looking at federal spending, it has gone up each and every year. It is nothing short of a lie to claim anyone will cut anything as there is no historical evidence that it has ever happened.

1. Just like any other transfer of that property that accrues a gain to another person, it ought to be taxed. You clearly believe in picking winners and losers despite your constant railing about the tax code yet you consistently want to deviate from neutral rules. It's not taxed twice to the same taxpayer. The founders wouldn't want it to transfer tax free either. And, Congress, because it likes creating distortions in the tax code for the sacred in our society (small business people and farmers) there are special rules that save them from your doomsday scenario.

2. Well the answer may not always be allowing folks to keep their own money if they only want to stick it under their mattress as perpetual depression ensues but your whole rant is way off topic. All of your praise for a guy who invests money could equally apply to a guy who invests his labor and you've yet to make a compelling case as to why they should be taxed at substantially different rates (as they are now)...especially if you want a simple tax code that doesn't pick winners and losers...your complaints are inconsistent and often melodramatic.

The people who are keeping their own money right now...rather than spend it in the private economy or invest in domestic products, more so than other things, are begging to lend it to the government. Despite your alleged allegiance to the market you don't seem to care what the market is saying.

3. Well they've adjusted the COLA formula in the past and raised the retirement age and Obamacare included cuts to medicare (which ironically the Republicans complained about)

BoatShoes;1238057 wrote:...

2. Well the answer may not always be allowing folks to keep their own money if they only want to stick it under their mattress as perpetual depression ensues but your whole rant is way off topic. All of your praise for a guy who invests money could equally apply to a guy who invests his labor and you've yet to make a compelling case as to why they should be taxed at substantially different rates (as they are now)...especially if you want a simple tax code that doesn't pick winners and losers...your complaints are inconsistent and often melodramatic.

The people who are keeping their own money right now...rather than spend it in the private economy or invest in domestic products, more so than other things, are begging to lend it to the government. Despite your alleged allegiance to the market you don't seem to care what the market is saying.

...

Now this could be interesting.

Treat those who invest assets the same as we treat those who invest labor. The "answer may not always be allowing folks to keep their own money if they only want to stick it under their mattress". Therefore, the "answer" may not always be allowing people to keep their own labor capabilities to themselves and not work. How selfish of them!

I can see where you are going with this and it's certainly interesting.

BoatShoes;1238051 wrote:Well I disagree. Steve LaTourette who's retiring now apparently...one of the last Republicans who was reasonable brought Bowles Simpson to a vote in the House and it got trounced by Republicnas.

Key point being THEY VOTED, unlike Harry Reid's senate. Pure dereliction of duty to not vote, not go on record, and not have the debates. The House is performing its role and function, but Harry Reid is the one playing politics.

BoatShoes;1238057 wrote:1. Just like any other transfer of that property that accrues a gain to another person, it ought to be taxed. You clearly believe in picking winners and losers despite your constant railing about the tax code yet you consistently want to deviate from neutral rules. It's not taxed twice to the same taxpayer. The founders wouldn't want it to transfer tax free either. And, Congress, because it likes creating distortions in the tax code for the sacred in our society (small business people and farmers) there are special rules that save them from your doomsday scenario.

2. Well the answer may not always be allowing folks to keep their own money if they only want to stick it under their mattress as perpetual depression ensues but your whole rant is way off topic. All of your praise for a guy who invests money could equally apply to a guy who invests his labor and you've yet to make a compelling case as to why they should be taxed at substantially different rates (as they are now)...especially if you want a simple tax code that doesn't pick winners and losers...your complaints are inconsistent and often melodramatic.

The people who are keeping their own money right now...rather than spend it in the private economy or invest in domestic products, more so than other things, are begging to lend it to the government. Despite your alleged allegiance to the market you don't seem to care what the market is saying.

3. Well they've adjusted the COLA formula in the past and raised the retirement age and Obamacare included cuts to medicare (which ironically the Republicans complained about)

1. I believe in picking winners and losers? How do you draw that conclusion? I've posted numerous times of my hatred of the US Tax Code and it's social engineering. I'd be for a Flat Tax, a Fair Tax, a simple tax....anything but the turd we have to bow to now. How is this anything BUT neutral? Your use of the phrase, "..ought to be taxed", proves that you believe that money/wealth belongs to the government, not the individual. The Death Tax should be abolished.

2. Where did the concept of hiding profits under the mattress come from? Name one of the Fortune 500 companies that got to their current level by sitting on cash and never investing? One of the building blocks for an expanding growing economy is access to capital. Taxing capital at 23.8% is NOT the way to achieve growth and jobs. Yet, here you are saying it is along with raising income taxes on small businesses in order to create jobs. Can you name one country that taxed itself into prosperity? How's California's economy since they enacted tax hikes?

3. Spending by the US government has grown each and every year. Baseline budgeting has helped bring us to the cliff and proposing "cuts" to this 3-card-monty game are nothing short of a grand illusion.

I understand the hatred, jealousy and envy of the rich. I just don't see how these deadly sins help the economy to prosper, grow and create jobs.

BGFalcons82;1240088 wrote:I understand the hatred, jealousy and envy of the rich. I just don't see how these deadly sins help the economy to prosper, grow and create jobs.

They don't. It's been a tried and true tactic of the socialists to point an envious finger at the eeeevil rich for all of society's social ills. But the wealth redistribution policies of socialist nations world wide have failed at nearly every turn. Sooner or later the zero sum game catches up to economic realities and EVERYONE loses.

There was a time when successful people in our nation were admired. But decades of rampant liberalism have created a volatile and politically polarizing mindset that suggests punishment of the wealth creators through a "progressive" tax structure that somehow rights the "wrongs."

You are correct that NO nation has ever taxed itself into an economic utopia. A society that feeds upon itself rather than rewarding creativity, efficiencies, and wealth creation (IE: eeeeevil profits) is doomed to failure.

LOL at people wanting a flat tax. You cannot be serious.

Footwedge;1240111 wrote:LOL at people wanting a flat tax. You cannot be serious.

I'd settle for eliminating income tax and their henchmen in the IRS and replacing it with a national consumption tax.

believer;1240165 wrote:I'd settle for eliminating income tax and their henchmen in the IRS and replacing it with a national consumption tax.

Put me down in support of that.